M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) THE facts of this case are relatively gross and in our considered view the police have virtually facilitated the acquittal of the accused through an incomplete investigation and if we may further amplify this statement through an unprofessional investigation. The facts of the case are very simple insofar as at about 5 p. m. on 24-4-2000 the accused tendered a hundred rupees note against the payment of his bill at Hotel Santhosh in Mysore City. The Manager who was vigilant and doubted the genuineness of the note checked it on a machine and found that it was counterfelt or rather that it was a fake currency note. He immediately telephoned the police who came there and apprehended the accused. Before taking the accused to the Police Station the note was rechecked on the machine and the police satisfied themselves that it was a fake note. According to the prosecution after the accused was taken to the Police Station he was searched in the presence of the two Panchas and 21 other hundred rupees note were found on his person all of which corresponded to the original fake note. In all therefore, the accused is charged with having been in possession of 22 such notes as also of having admitted to put one of them in circulation by passing it off as genuine. It is relevant to mention that apart from these notes that the accused also had in his possession 8 notes of hundred rupees and one note of fifty rupees all of which were found to be genuine. The charges in this case are confined to 22 fake notes and the user of one of them under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the IPC. The accused has denied the recovery and he has also denied the user of the note in question. The learned Trial Judge after having analysed the evidence produced before him has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredients of these offences viz that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the notes in question were counterfeit. The acquittal of the accused has been assailed Through the present appeal.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor at length and on merits. The reason for this is because there is a pure point of law involved in this case and unless the appellant-State is able to satisfy the High court that it can overcome the infirmities in law which have been noted by the trial Court there can be no question of disturbing the order of acquittal. It is for this reason that we have reviewed the record and heard the learned counsel both on facts and in law.

( 3 ) WE straightaway accept the submission canvassed on behalf of the State that regardless of the denial of the accused that the evidence of the Manager and Proprietor of the hotel P. Ws. 1 and 2 corroborated by the evidence of the i. O. who is P. W. 8 that the prosecution has fully established that on the day in question i. e. , 24-4-2000 at 5 p. m. the accused did tender one note of Rs. 100/- at the Hotel Santhosh towards the payment of his bill, that this note was examined and found to be fake, that the police were called for and that the accused was apprehended virtually red-handed.

( 4 ) ONE of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court was that in the aforesaid background the accused ought to have been searched at that spot itself and that the alleged recovery of the remaining notes at the Police Station is doubtful because both the Panchas have turned hostile. While the latter position is true, in cases of this type the Supreme Court has clarified the position in law that the recovery panchanama can be proved through the evidence of the l. O. in cases where the Panchas did not support it and the Court will accord the requisite evidentiary value to the document in question. We are inclined to uphold the submission canvassed by the learned Government Advocate that the subsequent recovery at the Police Station is only a continuation of the recovery of the note from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document